I would like to read the article, but it seems aggressively paywalled in a manner that appears distinctly akin to those porn-scam redirects that you come across on the internet.
(with the fake notifications from snapchat and tiktok)
I think this is an unfortunate consequence of the heading image of the article.
This is what worked for me, on the original article page (not the archive), using uBlock Origin (uBO):
- In the uBO dashboard, make sure you've selected "I am an advanced user" (which allows you to block specific domains).
- In the uBO UI, click "all" at the top to show all the domains, then block the following domains: meter-svc.nytimes.com and samizdat-graphql.nytimes.com. (Click on the column to the right of the domain name; it should turn red to indicate it's now blocked.)
(You can make these changes permanent by clicking on the lock icon in the uBO UI.)
After reloading the page, I was able to see the entire article.
What it feels to be a 40+ y/o web reader today. Paywall and most of what I can see off the bat are stereotypes of the worst kind of thing that people can do with a platform or each other? Now where do I sign up for that offer?
Too bad I will not be able to comprehend the point they're trying to make about the abusive way we are being channeled into a behavior pattern by the modern social media conglomerates because this media conglomerate wants me to pay for access to their channel. I still don't know what to teach my child. Thanks a bunch capitalism!
Any time one is tempted to post a sarcastic comment, it's good to re-read Poe's law[0] first. It does in fact always apply when posting on the internet.
(with the fake notifications from snapchat and tiktok)
I think this is an unfortunate consequence of the heading image of the article.